---

name: dac-supplementary description: Use when deciding what belongs inside the six reviewed pages of an ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC) Research Manuscript versus in an external repository, given DAC's tight 6+1 budget, its references-only seventh page, the double-blind constraint on any linked material, and the absence of a formal reviewed-appendix or artifact-badging track.

DAC Supplementary Material

Use this to split content between the reviewed pages and anything external. DAC's constraint is severe and specific: the manuscript is 6 pages of body plus one references-only page, and unlike some venues DAC does not provide an unlimited reviewed appendix or a formal artifact-evaluation track (待核实 per cycle). The governing rule follows directly: anything that decides acceptance must fit inside the six body pages, because a reviewer is neither obligated to nor guaranteed to open external material.

The decision-criticality test

For each piece of content, ask: would a reviewer need this to be convinced the contribution is real and the QoR claim is fair? If yes, it belongs in the body. If it merely lets a motivated reader reproduce or extend the work, it can live externally.

Content	Where it goes	Why
The headline QoR results and the mechanism	Body (6 pages)	Decision-critical; reviewers judge on these
Per-benchmark result table for the main claim	Body	The fairness of the comparison is the paper
The key ablation	Body	Attribution of the gain is decision-critical
Full hyperparameter grids, extra corners, exhaustive per-instance logs	External repo	Supports reproduction, does not decide acceptance
Source code, scripts, generated datasets	External repo	Reproducibility, not a reviewed deliverable
Extra proofs/derivations too long for six pages	External repo, with the result stated in-body	The claim must stand in-body; detail can be external

The seventh page is references only

DAC's most mechanical rule: the one extra page holds references and nothing else. Do not treat it as an appendix — an extra figure, a paragraph, or a table there is grounds for desk rejection (../dac-submission). Plan the technical argument to end cleanly at page six.

External material under double-blind

If you link a repository, dataset, or artifact at review time, it must be anonymized exactly like the PDF:

• No author names, institution names, or lab-named tools in the repo, README, or commit metadata.
• Host on an anonymizing service or a fresh anonymous mirror; a personal GitHub URL de-anonymizes.
• Strip cluster paths, internal server names, and vendor-flow fingerprints from any logs or scripts you include.
• Remember reviewers may not open it — so external material can only strengthen a paper that already stands on its six pages, never rescue one that does not.

What DAC does not have (plan accordingly)

• No formal reviewed appendix — do not write "see the appendix" for anything decision-critical; there is no guaranteed extra reviewed space beyond the six pages.
• No standing ACM artifact-badging track for research manuscripts (待核实) — so an artifact earns you credibility and citations, not a badge; build it for reproducibility and community use, not for a review score (../dac-artifact-evaluation, ../dac-reproducibility).

Compression before relegation

Before moving something out, try to earn its space in the body: convert a prose result to a compact table, merge two figures, cut standard EDA background the reviewers already know. Six dense double-column pages hold more than first drafts assume.

Output format

[Split audit]    each item -> body (decision-critical) / external (reproduction) / cut
[Seventh page]   references only, no body content? yes/no
[External anon]  linked repo/dataset/artifact anonymized? reviewer-optional acknowledged? yes/no
[Stands alone]   does the paper convince on its six pages without external material? yes/no
[Compression]    space reclaimed before relegating anything? yes/no